Ravinder Gosain vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Sunil Gaur, J

In pursuance of charge-sheet of 20th December, 2012 penalty of “reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay permanently†has been

inflicted upon petitioner after he had retired as General Manager of respondent-Bank on 31st December, 2012. Petitioner’s appeal against

aforesaid penalty stands dismissed vide order of 23rd January, 2017 (Annexure P-2).

The challenge to penalty order as well as appellate order by learned counsel for petitioner is on merits as well as on the plea of “lack of

authority†in imposing the aforesaid penalty. Learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to decision of the Supreme Court in UCO

Bank and Ors. v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, in Civil Appeal No. 4725/2010 rendered on 20th May, 2010 wherein it has been held that none of the

penalties specified in Regulation 4 of the UCO Bank Employees†(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 can be imposed on an employee after

his retirement from service, but by virtue of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, disciplinary proceedings can

be continued against an employee after his retirement, if they have been initiated prior to his retirement. Supreme Court in Prabhakar Sadashiv (supra)

has made it clear that after an employee is retired, final order can be passed in relation to his retiral benefits with the exception that such an employee

would be entitled to receive his/her own contribution to CPF.

Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to state as to whether the aforesaid plea was raised in appeal or not. Appellate order (Annexure P-2) is

cryptic one. Be that as it may. The parameters governing exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as reiterated by

Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, are as under: -

“Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.â€​

Although petitioner’s counsel had sought to assail impugned order imposing penalty as well as appellate order on merits, but this Court finds that

in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Gunasekaran, (supra), this Court is not required to go into the merits of this case and has to only see

that whether the principles of natural justice have been infringed or not and as to whether the inquiry proceedings are vitiated by arbitrariness or not.

Upon doing so, this Court finds that misconduct of petitioner is duly established.

So far as the order imposing penalty is concerned, this Court finds that it is fit case where the concerned authority of respondent-Bank should suo

moto invoke its review jurisdiction under Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 to consider as to whether

penalty imposed can be justified in view of Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Sadashiv (supra) and as to whether in the instant case, the

pensionary benefits of petitioner ought to be curtailed in terms of applicable Pension Regulations. Let the penalty imposed be reviewed by the

concerned authority of respondent-Bank by invoking its review jurisdiction. It be so done within a period of eight weeks from today, by passing a

speaking order. The outcome of review be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, to enable petitioner to have recourse to law, if need be.

So far as petitioner’s grievance of delayed payment of his retiral benefits is concerned, let petitioner make a Representation to the respondent-

Bank within a period of two weeks from today and if such a Representation is received by respondent-Bank, then it be decided by a speaking order

within six weeks thereafter and the fate of the Representation be conveyed to petitioner, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in

law, if need be.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

In pursuance of charge-sheet of 20th December, 2012 penalty of “reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay permanently†has been

inflicted upon petitioner after he had retired as General Manager of respondent-Bank on 31st December, 2012. Petitioner’s appeal against

aforesaid penalty stands dismissed vide order of 23rd January, 2017 (Annexure P-2).

The challenge to penalty order as well as appellate order by learned counsel for petitioner is on merits as well as on the plea of “lack of

authority†in imposing the aforesaid penalty. Learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to decision of the Supreme Court in UCO

Bank and Ors. v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, in Civil Appeal No. 4725/2010 rendered on 20th May, 2010 wherein it has been held that none of the

penalties specified in Regulation 4 of the UCO Bank Employees†(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 can be imposed on an employee after

his retirement from service, but by virtue of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, disciplinary proceedings can

be continued against an employee after his retirement, if they have been initiated prior to his retirement. Supreme Court in Prabhakar Sadashiv (supra)

has made it clear that after an employee is retired, final order can be passed in relation to his retiral benefits with the exception that such an employee

would be entitled to receive his/her own contribution to CPF.

Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to state as to whether the aforesaid plea was raised in appeal or not. Appellate order (Annexure P-2) is

cryptic one. Be that as it may. The parameters governing exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as reiterated by

Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, are as under: -

“Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.â€​

Although petitioner’s counsel had sought to assail impugned order imposing penalty as well as appellate order on merits, but this Court finds that

in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Gunasekaran, (supra), this Court is not required to go into the merits of this case and has to only see

that whether the principles of natural justice have been infringed or not and as to whether the inquiry proceedings are vitiated by arbitrariness or not.

Upon doing so, this Court finds that misconduct of petitioner is duly established.

So far as the order imposing penalty is concerned, this Court finds that it is fit case where the concerned authority of respondent-Bank should suo

moto invoke its review jurisdiction under Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 to consider as to whether

penalty imposed can be justified in view of Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Sadashiv (supra) and as to whether in the instant case, the

pensionary benefits of petitioner ought to be curtailed in terms of applicable Pension Regulations. Let the penalty imposed be reviewed by the

concerned authority of respondent-Bank by invoking its review jurisdiction. It be so done within a period of eight weeks from today, by passing a

speaking order. The outcome of review be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, to enable petitioner to have recourse to law, if need be.

So far as petitioner’s grievance of delayed payment of his retiral benefits is concerned, let petitioner make a Representation to the respondent-

Bank within a period of two weeks from today and if such a Representation is received by respondent-Bank, then it be decided by a speaking order

within six weeks thereafter and the fate of the Representation be conveyed to petitioner, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in

law, if need be.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.